He stated that until the Pericles Century there was an armony between dionisiac and Apollonian thought.

With Euripides, Socrates, and Plato, apollonian thought winned the battled over dionisiac thought. Is the beggining of Platonism and the world decadence.

Christianism(Platonism for the masses)ruled the world until the Age of Ilustration where the reason began to sustitute God, and metaphysics gets into a crisis.

At the present the Dead of God is almost inminent, and platonism is more questioned than before, even by religious people.

Nietsche said that then the advent of a superior human being would be possible when this occur(the dead of Gog).

Some times this man talked like a prophet, though he wasn´t, some times he pretended to be one. I think that many of the things he said are being seen now, not because he could foresee, but for his aplication of an extraordinary logic.

But I personaly think that in this postmodern times, people is more stupid than ever and there´s a bigest dispersion of senses than ever due to the media.

I think this is a dark age in wich we are entering, people hates culture, history, people don´t pay atention to anithing, their mind is disperse.

This decadence can be seen in movies, music, contemporary art(I hate it), politics, and all what used to be valuable now is not.

Maybe this is a transition period where human beings have not defined their cours.

I don´t believe Modernity is a good solution, but Postmodernity is a tireness of everything, a general discouregement unuseful for doing anithing creative for a renaissance of humanity.

Postmodernism is the nihilism Nietzsche saw coming. Society has become decadent because we have all had it too easy. Why try when everything can be given to us without much effort? We are the last men from Zarathustra.

I think that there will have to be two things that will have to happen before society will be able to overcome this nihilism. The first will be some event or series of events that will make people face hardships (war, the effects of peak oil, etc) that will take away their comforts. Second, a strong leader to give them direction. Of course, this is a story that has played out in history many times before, but humans have not changed significantly in the few thousand years history has been recorded.

The only bearing this has for Satanists is that we have the advantage of not being one of the lazy herd and can benefit from the weakness of others.

You will forgive me if I engage in some sentimentality and some reminiscing.

When I attended art college during the 1990’s the really big debate on campus was the Modern/Postmodern debate.

There were, of course, people who just didn’t care about this debate and went about doing their own thing, but for those of us who fancied ourselves theorists as well as painters, sculptors, installation and sound artists etc. the be all and end all of debate was this damned Modern/Postmodern question.

The Postmodern was best defined by guys like Jean-Francois Lyotard and Jean Baudrillard, who were considered the big figures in Postmodern theory.

Harbermas was considered important as a critic. Benjamin, Barthes, Derrida, Foucault, Said and Deleuze and many other figures were appropriated (sometimes against their will) in order to build the Postmodern philosophy.

There were a number of tendencies of so called Postmodernism, which were interesting.

Even now I am not sure whether these tendencies were somehow Postmodern or just a continuation of the critical aspects of late Modernist culture and thinking. Here are some the aspects of this so called Postmodern:

• A sense that grand narratives, such as the Hegelian philosophy of history, the emancipation of the working subject or the proletariat, the accumulation of wealth etc. were no longer convincing, they were no longer able to compel consensus as generators and legitimator’s of action.• The face of the other was said to have emerged to be seen and heard. The end of the white male as the sole originator of meaning or authority etc. Derrida’s deconstruction etc. The work of Kristeva etc. The work of Said etc.• The death of originality, the death of the author, the death of the avant-garde, the death of painting etc. etc. etc. Barthes and Foucault etc.• Baudrillard’s simulacra and simulation and the hyperreal.

There are more of these claims, regarding the Postmodern.

I actually see Dr. LaVey as holding an interesting place within this debate, within this set of questions.

I see Dr. LaVey as thoroughly modern in many respects. I see him as concerned with substantial reality; with issues of quality over quantity; with authenticity and authorship and originality over copies or simulation. I also see him as concerned with law and order issues, and questions related to responsibility.

I also see Dr. LaVey, particularly the early Dr. LaVey as interested in public perception and media representations and how meaning is generated.

Then there were the famous early phases of The Church when the show business aspects were important to establish a presence in the world.

Does any of this resonate with members? Did Dr. LaVey have a thoroughly Modern outlook and yet employ the odd Postmodern strategy when required?

"Thoroughly modern" is something I don't think that anyone could ever apply to Anton Szandor LaVey. Anton LaVey was a man who did pretty much anything t hat he could to keep the modern world at bay unless he could find some compelling reason not to. He accepted computers and modern keyboards because they helped him in his music and in his writing, as well as running things from the Black House. But the man was not in any way enamored of modernity.

He surrounded himself with things that brought him memories of a simpler time. His home reflected that, being a time capsule of the 1930's and 1940's that he embraced. His clothing style (even if his clothes were newer and not vintage) reflected the style of a gentleman in the same period... he went for style over flash, although his style could be flashy, but always with STYLE.

Women around him tended to have an air of the 30's and 40's vixen, rather than the "flower child" or "urban rebel" or the time period. They wore skirts and stockings and heels and makeup. They looked like women. I don't think I ever saw a woman in jeans anywhere near Dr. LaVey.

He didn't want to know the news of the day. Didn't want to talk about Vietnam, or what it meant. He would much rather talk about things the way they WERE, and what he hoped to do to return some measure of what he defined as "civility" back to the world as he wished it could be.

I should note that Kuhn’s paradigm theory was one of those philosophical theories, which the Postmodernists in fact appropriated and used to describe the altered consciousness and “movement” of history, once the Hegelian/Marxist model had lost its validity.

I tend to perceive the relevance and reality of the Modern/Postmodern constructs, but realise that the meaning of those constructs may be still contested, and may have collapsed into each other to a certain extent.

To Jake

Yes I can appreciate that Dr. LaVey established and enjoyed a total environment, indicative of the aesthetic and moral qualities of the 1930’s and 1940’s.

His witches seem to reflect his ECI I would assume – those feminine bombshells with the high heels, stockings and suspenders and make up and the glamour glamour glamour.

For a contemporary artist the aesthetics of the 1930’s and the 1940’s tend to represent a period of time which is quintessentially Modern.

Film Noir, German Expressionism, Geometric form, Art Deco are all deeply Modernist in nature from the perspective of many contemporary artists in my experience.

The assumption here is that the Modern/early Modern may have in fact ended in the 1960’s and was replaced by something else.

I can certainly understand Dr.LaVey wanting to close himself off and avoid what may be described as Late Modernity or Postmodernity.

I just wanted to make a comment on the first post in this thread in relation to the work of Friedrich Nietzsche.

It is interesting to note that it was Nietzsche and the way Foucault and Deleuze later read Nietzsche, particularly The Genealogy of Morals, which provided an impetus towards Post Structuralist and Post Modernist thinking.

The key point, in this sense, was that “truth” or “reality” or “right” was established through appropriation and transformation by the “will to truth,” unmasked as the will to power, determined by physiology and instinct and rank.

The superman has been described (by Nietzsche himself) to be similar to Aristotle’s magnanimous man or as resembling Goethe in many ways.

If God dies than it does not necessarily mean each individual will elevate him or herself to supreme power. Some, including, the Satanist may have the courage and the clarity to do this, but probably not the vast majority.

And I'm beginning to be more and more convinced that you're a troll who simply decides what he wants to believe in his head and then tries to find someone to validate it. I could tell you what you want to hear. That would be easy. But then, it would be a lie...

You'd accept that though. Which makes you as phony as any other wannabe who comes in here and tries to glom onto LaVey's name to push their own agenda. I personally see no percentage in helping you validate your delusions.

You know what... I was going to respond, but fuck it. I grow weary as hell of people coming on line and acting like they're experts in LaVeyan history without ever even managing to scratch the surface.

If people want to write bullshit, have at it.If people want to believe their bullshit, have at it.

Modernity/Post-modernity is just a term to describe the form of art and architecture in a certain period of time. Pinning people and claiming they have an influence without any factual evidence or clear indications is like shooting a bat in the dark, you'll miss it for sure.

As what Jake said is purely an indication that ASL, from what I understand and think he meant, didn't give a flying fuck about it. The style he liked was dating from the 30-40ies for aesthetical reasons of his own which aren't my business. Do you want to put the label of "Modernity"on it? Go ahead. The truth is that neither he and many others didn't care what label you are giving x years later.

The point here is simple: you are trying to put a label onto someone you don't know, never met or have any background of.

For a contemporary artist the aesthetics of the 1930’s and the 1940’s tend to represent a period of time which is quintessentially Modern.

Film Noir, German Expressionism, Geometric form, Art Deco are all deeply Modernist in nature from the perspective of many contemporary artists in my experience.

The assumption here is that the Modern/early Modern may have in fact ended in the 1960’s and was replaced by something else.

I can certainly understand Dr.LaVey wanting to close himself off and avoid what may be described as Late Modernity or Postmodernity.

Maybe Lavey avoided mediocricy of postmodern times that is said began in the early 70´s. His art and style still belonged to modern times.

Postmodernity is, culturality speaking, artistic.

But Postmodernity, sociologicaly speaking, refers to a cultural process that have ocurred in many countries in the last 20 years and was already beggining in the early 70´s.

Sociologicaly, and culturaly, modernity began in the age of ilustration, in the XVIII century and all art, culture, economy, philosophy, etc. Was ruled by this thought: faith in the human being, faith in progress, faith in education, faith in reason, etc.

But in the twentieth century men demostrated that were real beasts, and worst than animals with two deadly big wars, concentration camps, and gulag.

Postmodernity is a disapointment, a tireness, a lost of faith in human race. Sociologists say that Postmodernity began in early 70´s, but modernity ended with the fall of the Wall of Berlin in 1989.

From that year until now, human beings are totaly different, people with my age and beyond can note the difference.

Quote:

The Postmodern was best defined by guys like Jean-Francois Lyotard and Jean Baudrillard, who were considered the big figures in Postmodern theory.

Is interesting, Baudrilard made studies about the change of reality for virtuality in theese Postmodern times.

For me that´s what defines must that senses are disperse and people have lost social relationships, and don´t use their brains anymore.

To clear things up:

This thread is to discuss a sociologycal phenomena compared to Nietzsche philosophy, not to define Satanism into Modern and Postmodern thought.

Nietzche was an acrid critic of modernity and reason of ilustration in his times.

And suspected Postmodern times in many of his writings, he was first breaking paradigms of Modernity.

All those philosophers quoted by MatthewJ1 have been highly influenced by the thought of Nietzsche.

The Modern/Postmodern was so much more to me than just a way of describing and categorising art objects and architecture.

It really was the dominant intellectual issue in my life and a great deal of my studies over the last 15 to 20 years was concerned with it.

The most pertinent quality which the Postmodern demonstrates is this so called legitimation crisis.

It was Nietzsche and the thinkers, who later read Nietzsche in significant ways, such as Foucault, Bataille, Derrida and Deleuze, who analysed and elaborated this crisis of legitimation and meaning in the most profound and dangerous way.

The Nietzschean re-evaluation of all values, the overman, the master morality detailed in the later parts of Beyond Good and Evil and The Will to Power notebooks is the beginning of the way out of the Postmodern dilemma in my opinion.

One of the main reason I took up the philosophy of LaVey was because it seemed to me that his thinking was the clearest, most logical and most important elaboration of this way out.

I personally regard LaVey as one of the most important philosophers of the Twentieth Century; his thinking is absolutely critical in re – establishing meaning, responsibility, authenticity and quality in western culture and society, whilst acknowledging the carnal and mundane aspects of humanity.

I cannot separate the Modern, the Postmodern and the Satanic philosophy. They are inseparably connected.

No doubt there will be those who disagree with me - oh well, such as life.

The way postmodern philosophers look at knoweledge has been very dangerous for human beings of today.

Men before Ilustration believed in God, Ilustration killed that God and started to believe in reason.

In postmodern times people have killed reason too, so there is an emptiness in peoples mind that nobody knows where´s going.

Maybe, for some people, Satanism is a good philosophy, because it warns us against stupidity, the lack of common sense and inmaturity.

It´s vitalist principles are attached to nature, instincts, and the convenient inteligence.

But I see that there are many who think that Satanism is a question of considering others idiot or being rude in the way they speak. That´s like behaving like people they criticize.

I call that: "The rebell rock singer attitude", that in reality means: "I say I´m a satanist because it makes me feel special, but as I´m an idiot and inmature, and I realy know it, I speak rudely to you so you think that I´m inteligent and more satanistic than you".That kind of people deserve not my attention at all.

So, not all so called satanists, I think, keep inteligence and matureness as philosophy to get to be a "Superman" in these times.

I agree that many historical trends are ongoing and barely recognised by those who are not participating in them and do not have some sort of stake in them.

I personally like to employ Kuhn’s paradigm theory as a means of approaching and understanding the historical.

The way I understand Kuhn’s paradigm theory is as follows and this is based on my reading of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions:

• New knowledge claims, in some sense constituting a new order of truth or framework of the real, are put forward and are accepted by a community of interested participants or stakeholders.• The paradigm is built within the framework of the new knowledge claims by the community and as such acquires more and more authority as The Real as further successful claims are made over time.• All other alternative forms of knowledge, or of the real, are relegated to the margins, if they are considered incompatible with the functioning or theoretical framework of the paradigm.• No paradigm remains entirely secure as challengers arise and new knowledge claims are produced and clashes and replacement occur. This is born out by the study of history.

I do not know if you would agree with this - but it seems to me that the Satanic philosophy has held a position in the margins for centuries and may still hold such a place, even though there are individuals from all periods of history, who have employed the tactics of the Satanic philosophy, in order to meet goals which one could describe as Satanic.

It also seems to me that the dominant way of interpreting or defining Satanism as a philosophy or a way of life is to compare and contrast it with the traditionally dominant Judeo –Christian paradigm and the way that paradigm functions and plays out within western culture and within the mind and bodies of human beings.

My purpose in this particular thread is to interpret or define Satanism by examining it within the philosophical discourse of the modern/postmodern question as you have quite correctly pointed out Maw.

It is also to try to remain true to Cesare’s intention for this thread, which I read as being concerned with the legitimation crisis posed by the Postmodern and the question of the Nietzschean superman and how meaning or truth or reason can be restored via the superman.

I engaged in this because the modern/postmodern question meant more to me than the Judeo - Christian paradigm ever did. Satanism, which I tend to view as distinctly modern in flavour, seemed to me at least to be a return to originality and authenticity and quality, whilst retaining the materialism or realism of the world inherent in the genuinely modern.

I love the aesthetic of modernism as well and the Satanic fascination with the trapezoid and angles.

Anyway I will not continue it.

I do note that the paradigm model itself may be a redundant form for looking at Satanism, considering that one of the premises of Satanism is individually created values, self assertion and subjective projection. A tool such as the paradigm with its emphasis on structure, community and consensus may clash with the premise of Satanism.